DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed 08 April 2026. As per the amendment: claims 1, 11, and 16 have been amended, claims 2, 12, and 17 have been cancelled, and no claims have been added. Thus, claims 1, 3-11, 13-16, and 18-20 are presently pending and under examination.
Response to Arguments
Response to Arguments Regarding 35 USC 102/103
Applicant's arguments filed 08 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has amended independent claims 1, 11 and 16 to recite the limitation of now cancelled claims 2, 12, and 17, specifically the limitations of “determining…a sleep optimization recommendation for the user based on the analysis; compiling, by the device, based on the determination of the sleep optimization recommendation…wherein the notification causes automatic control of electronic devices at the location, the automatic control causing the electronic devices to operate in a manner as directed by the set of instructions” (emphasis added). Applicant further argues that the prior art references used in the rejection do not teach creating a sleep recommendation for a user, that is a recommendation that controls how devices function within a location (e.g., room) for a user based on current activity of the user as compared against a pattern(s) of activity and “actionable instructions performed within a specific location before the user goes to sleep is absent from the disclosure”
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “recommendations that control how devices function within a location for a user based on current activity of the user as compared against a pattern(s) of activity”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The Applicant instead claims “collecting, by a device, data about a user, the user data comprising information related to activities of the user; analyzing, by the device, the user data based on at least one pattern of activity of the user”, there is explicit claim that the analysis is comparing the current activity against the pattern(s) of activity, additionally, the claim recites the notification comprising information related to the recommendation, the notification comprising executable operations for managing the sleep of the user, wherein the notification causes automatic control of the devices. From the specification, it appears that the recommendation to the user and the automatic control of the device within the device are two separate notifications ([0072]). Under BRI, the notification will be interpreted to be a sleep optimization recommendation to the user that the user can perform in the environment ([0072] “information indicating suggestions for their sleep (e.g., turn off phone, turn on fan in the room, stop or do not eat further, and the like)”) or the notification is an instruction for control of the devices at the location ([0029] “the disclosed framework can leverage such insights, in addition to the recommendations to the users, to control the location in which they are sleeping. For example, access points, devices (e.g., televisions, smart phones, and the like), lights and/or any other smart home feature can be engaged and/or toggled to different and/or modified modes upon the determination of a user’s sleep, which can assist the user from engaging in activity that may be detrimental to their known sleep habits.”.
It appears that with the amendment “wherein the notification causes automatic control of electronic device at the location, the automatic control causing the electronic devices to operate in a manner as directed by the set of instruction”, the applicant attempts to conflates the notifications with the instructions of operation for automatic control. Additionally, examiner would like to note that “the notification causes” does not equate to an instruction, as it does not preclude that a user can receive a notification and decide on their own to manually perform the instruction.
Nonetheless, under BRI, Pandey teaches the limitations of independent claims 1, 11, and 16 (as described in more detail below). Pandey teaches “a sleep recommendation system that considers various lifestyle factors as contextual variables and possible recommendations for optimizing a sleep parameter. We create a rule-based model to understand the effects of different lifestyle factors (such as exercise during the day, and mealtimes) on sleep parameters. These rules are used in a recommendation system framework for providing the most effective interventions at any time throughout the day. These interventions could be lifestyle recommendations presented to the user or a command to one of the IoT or smart devices that control the user’s environment (e.g., HVAC systems, Light bulbs, Music or ambient sounds).” (pg. 2, 1. Introduction) wherein a personal model is generated for the specific individual (Figure 1) and the current activity is compared to the ruled based personal model (Figure 2, pg. 4., 4. Multi-Item Health Recommendations: “We match the live contextual parameters for the person with the contextual parameters of the various rules present in the model. If the current context matches multiple rules, then we utilize the rule with the highest likelihood of the desired outcome. Once we have identified the rules that match the current context, we can utilize the unmatched contextual parameters and the intervention event to find the set of parameters that can lead to the optimal outcome”) which results in a recommendation that can provide a notification to the user or set of instructions for automatic control of the electronic devices at the location (pg. 4., 4. Multi-Item Health Recommendations: “We can either present the recommendation to the user (if the recommendation is an action to be taken by the user) or communicate with a smart device that controls the user’s environmental context (e.g., smart home devices, HVAC systems, smart bulbs)”).
Therefore, claims 1, 3-7, and 11-20 are rejected under 35 USC 103, as described in detail below.
No specific additional arguments were present with previous 35 USC 103 rejections of claims 8-10, nor specifically with respect to the previously cited Mytelka, Molettiere, and Sanchez.
Therefore, claims 8-10 remain rejected as described in detail below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pandey, Vaibhav, et al. "Personalized User Modelling for Context-Aware Lifestyle Recommendations to Improve Sleep." HealthRecSys@ RecSys. 2020., hereinafter Pandey.
Regarding claim 1, Pandey discloses a method (Abstract: “utilize the generated model to provide lifestyle recommendations to optimize sleep outcomes in a context-aware health recommendation system” comprising:
collecting, by a device, data about a user, the user data comprising information related to activities of the user (pg. 4, 5. Experiments and Results: “We utilized data collected by one individual for more than two years using readily available consumer applications and wearable and IoT devices.”, pg. 5, 5.1 Data set: measuring exercise and lifestyle parameters, local temperature and humidity values, sleep events, step count, food log)
analyzing, by the device, the user data based on at least one pattern of activity of the user (pg. 5, 5.1 Data Set: “We used the thresholds mentioned in Table 1 and Table 2 to convert the data streams to relevant events for the event mining analysis. We used nine lifestyle/environmental events: Previous Night’s Sleep Quality Measures, Exercise Minutes in the Day, Interval Between Eating and Sleeping, Minutes Awake Between Sleep Events, Temperature, and Humidity when going to bed. The possible output events are sleep quality measures (Table 1).”, 5.2 and 5.3);
determining, by the device, a sleep optimization recommendation for the user based on the analysis (pg. 5, 5.3 Context Matching and Sleep Predictions: “We train a linear regression model corresponding to every rule in the model, and use the data subset that matches the rule to train the model. This model is then used to predict sleep outcomes for situations matching with the rule…The model’s input features are Exercise minutes during the day, Feeding Time, Time Awake, Humidity, and Temperature while going to bed. We match the user’s context with the context of the rules, and the most significant rule that matches the context is used to provide the recommendation”);
compiling, by the device, based on the determination, the sleep optimization recommendation, a set of instructions to be performed within a location of the user prior to the user going to sleep; communicating, over a network, a notification to the user, the notification comprising information related to the sleep optimization recommendation, the notification comprising executable operations for managing the sleep of the user at the location, wherein the notification causes automatic control of electronic devices at the location, the automatic control causing the electronic devices to operate in a manner as directed by the set of instructions (pg. 4, 4. Multi-Item Health Recommendations: “We match the live contextual parameters for the person with the contextual parameters of the various rules present in the model…We can either present the recommendation to the user (if the recommendation is an action to be taken by the user) or communicate with a smart device that controls the user’s environmental context (e.g., smart home devices, HVAC systems, smart bulbs)… Thus, at any point during the day, the recommendation system would provide a list of timestamped actions to be performed by different agents (the user, or an automated device) to optimize the sleep outcomes”)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 3-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Pandey in view of Shouldice et al. (US 2022/0280747 A1, previously cited), hereinafter Shouldice.
Regarding claim 3, Pandey discloses the method of claim 1 (as shown above). Although Pandey discloses “present the recommendation to the user” (pg. 4, 4. Multi-Item Health Recommendations), Pandey fails to explicitly disclose wherein the notification is visibly displayed upon communication, such that indications for the user related to how the user is recommended to act based on the set of instructions are displayed.
However, Shouldice a method for sleep management, and may concern systems and methods for assisting a user to fall asleep ([0002]) teaches wherein the notification is visibly displayed upon communication, such that indications for the user related to how the user is recommended to act based on the set of instructions are displayed ([0114] “The system may optionally include a receiver configured to receive one or more advice messages associated with the selected cause, the advice messages including advice content for promoting sleep. The system may optionally include a display to display the received one or more advice messages to a user.”, [0124] “The one or more processors may be configured to generate one or more advice messages associated with the selected cause, the advice messages including advice content for promoting sleep. Optionally, the one or more processors may be configured to transmit (or display) the generated one or more advice messages to a display device associated with the user.”, Figure 24: bottom messages under “From S+ Mentor”, Abstract: “Communicated sleep advice may include content to promote good sleep habits and/or detect risky sleep conditions.”, [0520]).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pandey to incorporate the teachings of Shouldice to have the notification is visibly displayed upon communication, such that indications for the user related to how the user is recommended to act based on the set of instructions are displayed, as these prior art references and the instant application are directed to enhancing a user’s sleep based on their lifestyle. One would be motivated to do this to be able to inform a user of ways or methods to improve their sleep.
Regarding claim 4, Pandey discloses the method of claim 1 (as shown above), wherein the notification corresponds to real-world and digital components of an environment of the location (pg. 4, 4. Multi-Item Health Recommendations: “We can either present the recommendation to the user (if the recommendation is an action to be taken by the user) or communicate with a smart device that controls the user’s environmental context (e.g., smart home devices, HVAC systems, smart bulbs)”). Pandey fails to disclose wherein the environment corresponding to a bedroom of the user at the location.
However, Shouldice teaches wherein the notification corresponds to real-world and digital components of an environment of the location ([0571]-[0579] “Generate and Provide further suggestions over time to improve sleep—a combination of environment and personal routine recommendations. For example: (a) Prompt for checking on lighting settings, TV/gadgets, eating before going to bed (i.e., best practice). (b) Prompt to go to bed when a statistically determined suitable time approaches (option of bedtime alarm as a reminder). (c) Advise the user on what to eat and drink before bed (diet) and when the user wakes up, what to do (listen to music) and not to do (eat or watch TV) in bed and what to take to bed with the user (e.g., by email, in-app, on web). (d) Ask the user what settings/changes they are capable of making and remembers this so as to only recommend changes to the user that the user can implement, e.g., dimming light settings (e) Provide a “Willpower Index”—may warn the user that their willpower may be tested if they haven't managed to get sufficient quality or quantity of sleep. (f) Offer the user the opportunity to explore other products related to any problems that might help sleep better (e.g., sleep bedding, eye masks, speakers for enhanced audio experience) in-app or on web (g) Provide access to discussion forums to learn from sleep experts and other people's approaches—on website and via email/app. (h) Provide recommendations and references to interesting articles on what affects our sleep and how we can improve it—website and via email/app.”), the environment corresponding to a bedroom of the user at the location ([0218] “The system can use environmental sensors to monitor the user's bedroom environment, such as light, sound, temperature, humidity, and/or air quality.”).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pandey to incorporate the teachings of Shouldice to have the environment corresponding to a bedroom of the user at the location, as these prior art references and the instant application are directed to enhancing a user’s sleep based on their lifestyle. One would be motivated to do this as the bedroom is often where a user will sleep.
Regarding claim 5, Pandey discloses the method of claim 1 (as shown above), wherein the user data comprises information corresponding to the user that is sleep latency (Table 1), nighttime awakenings (Table 1), screen usage during sleep time (pg. 3, 4 Multi-Item Health Recommendations: “Total Screen Time during the day is an important confounding factor for understanding an individual’s sleeping habits. It can be determined by aggregating the duration of all the screen activity events (such as working, watching TV, and social media activity) during the day”), motion or activity data at the location (Table 2).
Pandey fails to explicitly disclose wherein the user data comprises information corresponding to the user that is deep sleep duration, light sleep duration, restlessness, cloud-hosted data about the user, biometric of the user, and network data related to a network at the location.
However, Shouldice further teaches wherein the user data comprises information corresponding to the user that is sleep latency, deep sleep duration, light sleep duration, restlessness, nighttime awakening ([0114] “The one or more processors may be configured to access measured sleep data representing user movement detected by a movement sensor, and to process the measured sleep data to determine sleep factors with features derived from the measured data.”, [0015] “The sleep factors may comprise one or more of sleep latency, REM sleep time, deep sleep time and number of sleep interruptions”. [0544] “measured parameters (also referred as principles): REM duration; Sleep Duration; Awakenings (number and/or duration); SWS (Deep sleep) duration; and Sleep Onset duration”), motion or activity data at the location (biomotion sensor, [0383] “The biomotion sensor of the BeD discussed above is capable of detection of movement—both gross body movement and the movement of the chest (of a human or animal such as a dog, horse, cow, etc.) due to the physiological action of breathing”), cloud-hosted data about the user ([0243] “The SmD's cloud interface enables exchange between the BeD and the cloud/servers of: user data; processed sleep data (states, scores, etc.); annotated advice (“nuggets”).”, [0248] “Input to the cloud user backend via the SmD interface may include User data, Processed sleep data, Raw sleep data, Sound data, Celsius temperature data and/or Luminance light data. Output from the cloud user backend to the SmD interface may include User data and/or Processed sleep data, Advice data etc.”), biometrics of the user ([0266] “Other versions may use the main user's characteristic breathing and/or heart rate patterns to distinguish the user from another user's signals (e.g., bed partner).”, [0214] “the system may monitor the user's heart rate, and heart rate variability in order to estimate their level of stress”, [0509] “At 3602, respiration and movement (and optionally heart rate) data may be detected from a use”).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pandey to incorporate the teachings of Shouldice to have the user data comprises information corresponding to the user that is deep sleep duration, light sleep duration, restlessness, cloud-hosted data about the user, biometric of the user, and network data related to a network at the location, as these prior art references are directed to enhancing a user’s sleep. One would be motivated to do this as these features are known to have an impact on a user’s sleep.
Regarding claim 6, Pandey discloses the method of claim 1 (as shown above). Pandey fails to disclose the method, further comprising: determining a time proximate the user going to sleep, the time proximate corresponding to a time period prior to the user sleeping at the location for which the set of instructions are to be performed, wherein the communication of the notification corresponds to the time proximate.
However, Shouldice teaches the method further comprising: determining a time proximate the user going to sleep, the time proximate corresponding to a time period prior to the user sleeping at the location for which the set of instructions are to be performed, wherein the communication of the notification corresponds to the time proximate ([0213] “The rationale is that if a user is in a ‘stressed’ condition lying in bed, they may find it very difficult to unwind and relax at that time—even with customised breathing exercises or advice. In order to address this need—which may be communicated by the user, or automatically determined based on an observed long duration sleep latency (lengthy time to sleep)—the system can recommend scheduling a series of breathing exercises in the hours before going to bed such as the ‘assisted mediation’ feature”, [0214] “For example, if a user typically goes to bed at say 11 pm, but is seen to take 30 mins to fall asleep, has many interruptions and reports being stressed/“mind racing” in bed, the system may recommend a breathing programme at 10 pm. This could be related to the user by way of a reminder alert on the smartphone (app alert, email, text, audio sound, or other means). This programme might consist of deep breathing exercises lasting 15 minutes, with biofeedback utilising the non-contact sensor. A period of gentle music may follow. The purpose is to relax the user in this time, and prepare them gently for sleep.”).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pandey to incorporate the teachings of Shouldice to determine a time proximate the user going to sleep, the time proximate corresponding to a time period prior to the user sleeping at the location for which the set of instructions are to be performed, wherein the communication of the notification corresponds to the time proximate, as these prior art references and the instant application are directed to enhancing a user’s sleep based on their lifestyle. One would be motivated to do this to make sure the patient is relaxed and prepared right before their sleep, as recognized by Shouldice ([0214]).
Regarding claim 7, Pandey discloses the method of claim 1 (as shown above). Pandey fails to explicitly disclose wherein the collected user data corresponds to data collected by the device in accordance with a plurality of locations.
However, Shouldice teaches wherein the collected user data corresponds to data collected by the device in accordance with a plurality of locations ([0532] “location data (e.g., GPS or other location awareness information) may be accessed and the advice may be generated based on the location advice. For example, by evaluating location data, advice can be based on actual sunrise time at the user location. Similarly, the device may check if the user is travelling and offer appropriate advice to manage jetlag or their new room environment, and other weather based parameters such as pollen count, temperature and humidity during the day or at night that might affect sleep. The phases of the moon (e.g., full moon) may also be referenced, and used to tailor advice.”).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pandey to incorporate the teachings of Shouldice to have the collected user data correspond to data collected by the device in accordance with a plurality of locations, as these prior art references and the instant application are directed to enhancing a user’s sleep based on their lifestyle. One would be motivated to do this to be able to provide the user with advice as per their location.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pandey as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mytelka et al. (US 2018/0261065 A1, previously cited), hereinafter Mytelka.
Regarding claim 8, Pandey discloses the method of claim 1 (as shown above). Pandey fails to explicitly teach the method further comprising: identifying a set of devices associated with the location; collecting data from each of the set of devices; analyzing, via an application, the collected data; determining, via the application, a set of patterns of activity for the user; and storing, in a database, the set of patterns of activity, wherein the at least one pattern of activity is identified from the stored determined pattern of activity.
However, Mytelka teaches a method, computer program, and system for monitoring a person in a structure having a first room and second room (Abstract) and monitoring activities that are routinely done, such as drinking, using refrigerator, oven, microwave, toilet, shower, sleeping, TV, and pill intake wherein the method further comprising: identifying a set of devices associated with the location ([0019] “Each signal having an identifier identifying whether each signal arose from the first or second motion sensor 20, 24 and/or accelerometers or door 18 contact 28. The identifier of each signal being stored in the memory 30”); collecting data from each of the set of devices ([0019] “system 10 for monitoring a person in a structure 12 having a first room 14 and a second room 16 with a front door 18 for egress and ingress to the structure 12. The system 10 comprises a first motion sensor 20 adapted to be disposed in the first room 14 to determine a state associated with first room 14. The system 10 comprises a first accelerometer 22 adapted to be disposed in the first room 14 to determine an activity in the first room 14. The system 10 comprises a second accelerometer 26 adapted to be disposed in the second room 16 to determine an activity in the second room 16. The system 10 comprises a second motion sensor 24 adapted to be disposed in the second room 16 to determine a state associated with the second room 16. The system 10 comprises a door 18 contact 28 for identifying when the door 18 is open.”, [0024]-[0026] other devices that collect data) ; analyzing, via an application, the collected data; determining, via the application, a set of patterns of activity for the user ([0034] “Configuration System 10 gives the Client or Care-giver the place to enter all Cliental information and to define their Patterns (as defined by amount of frequency or time). Entering information with the use of these forms establishes a base line. As the client is monitored over time, and data is collected from the various sensors throughout the living area, the structure 12, the routines or actual patterns over time of the client are refined to establish a norm of behavior or routine of the client.”, Figure 9); and storing, in a database, the set of patterns of activity, wherein the at least one pattern of activity is identified from the stored determined pattern of activity ([0150] “The System processes the data received as follows: time of entrance to bathroom, motion continues until client sits upon toilet 42, toilet 42 is flushed, motion resumes in bathroom, and then ceases to trigger motion, when time of cessation is recorded. Total time is tabulated, and posted to the System database and Mobile App (see FIG. 1). Tabulated length of time and frequency of times is compared with prescribed Pattern time programmed previously into the system 10 for that particular client. If total time tabulated is within the Pattern, it is designated as normal, and posted to the database and Mobile App (data is used to determine patterns over time, see FIG. 3, Historical Graphs) of the System 10.” (emphasis added), [0120], [0166]) .
It would have been prima facia obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pandey to incorporate the teachings of Mytelka to have the method further comprising: identifying a set of devices associated with the location; collecting data from each of the set of devices; analyzing, via an application, the collected data; determining, via the application, a set of patterns of activity for the user; and storing, in a database, the set of patterns of activity, wherein the at least one pattern of activity is identified from the stored determined pattern of activity, as these prior art references are directed to monitoring an individual using sensors based in the user’s environment and determining a routine of the individual and a deviation from the routine. One would be motivated to do this to be able to easily and without hassle monitor a user and their behavior to alert/alarm the user of any risky deviations, as recognized by Mytelka ([0034], [0004]).
Regarding claim 9, Pandey in view of Mytelka teaches the method of claim 8 (as shown above). Pandey fails to explicitly disclose wherein the set of devices corresponds to devices comprising sensor capabilities for tracking movements and information about the user at the location.
However, Mytelka teaches wherein the set of devices corresponds to devices comprising sensor capabilities for tracking movements and information about the user at the location ([0031] “Motion sensors are used to identify movement in regard to a state, and thus whether the state is active. For instance, a motion sensor can be positioned on a wall in a bedroom or on a wall in the kitchen/dining room to detect when there is movement in the bedroom, and thus the bedroom state is active, or two detect when there is movement in the kitchen/dining room, and thus the kitchen/dining room state is active, respectively. Accelerometers are used to identify a specific activity within a state. For instance, and accelerometer can be attached to a TV remote control to identify when the remote control is picked up by the Client. An accelerometer can be attached to a cold water handle of the shower to identify when the cold water handle is moved for the Client to take a shower. An accelerometer disposed in a recliner can be used to identify a resting or leisure activity. For a given activity, the accelerometer is attached to an object associated with the activity to identify when the object is moved, and thus the activity has occurred) .
It would have been prima facia obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pandey to incorporate the teachings of Mytelka to have wherein the set of devices corresponds to devices comprising sensor capabilities for tracking movements and information about the user at the location, as these prior art references are directed to monitoring an individual using sensors based in the user’s environment and determining a routine of the individual and a deviation from the routine. One would be motivated to do this to be able to easily and without hassle monitor a user and their behavior to alert/alarm the user of any risky deviations, as recognized by Mytelka ([0034], [0004]).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pandey as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Molettiere et al. (US 2016/0285985 A1), hereinafter Molettiere.
Regarding claim 10, Pandey discloses the method of claim 1 (as shown above). Pandey fails to explicitly disclose wherein the device is a smart ring.
However, Molettiere teaches methods and system for combining or synthesizing multiple data streams into a unified data stream wherein the data includes environmental and biometric devices ([0010]) wherein the device is a smart ring ([0071] “a user wears multiple devices in multiple locations in or about the body…Examples of locations where devices are worn or carried include, but are not limited to:…a ring..”).
It would have been prima facia obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pandey to incorporate the teachings of Molettiere to have the device be a smart ring, as these prior art references are directed to gathering environmental and biometric data including sleep phases and quality. One would be motivated to do this to obtain user data without having to comprise on comfort during sleep.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pandey as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sanchez (US Patent 11,537,203 B2, previously cited), hereinafter Sanchez.
Regarding claim 10, Pandey discloses the method of claim 1 (as shown above). Pandey fail to explicitly disclose wherein the device is a smart ring.
However, Sanchez teaches implementations of smart ring wearable devices with visual projections wherein the device is a smart ring (Column 5, lines 32-35: “The smart ring 101 may sense a variety of signals indicative of activities of a user wearing the ring 101, biometric signals, a physiological state of the user, or signals indicative of the user's environment.”).
It would have been prima facia obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pandey to incorporate the teachings of Sanchez to have the device be a smart ring, as these prior art references are directed to system that comprise of devices that are able to sense biometric and environmental data to monitor a user. One would be motivated to do this as the smart ring device can monitor biometrics of a user and can be easily be worn throughout the user’s day and/or overnight allowing the smart ring to track sleeping habits to accurately determine a physical state of the wearer, as recognized by Sanchez (Column 1, lines 53-57).
Claim(s) 11 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Margarito et al. (US 2022/0020286 A1), hereinafter Margarito in view of Pandey.
Regarding claim 11, Margarito discloses a device (a melatonin optimization system 10) comprising:
A processor ([0022] “In an exemplary embodiment, the data collection and analysis tasks of the systems 10, 100 can be executed by any type of controller or computing system with input/output, processing, and memory capabilities, and any number or combination of such controller or computing systems can be used without departing from the scope of the disclosed concept.”) configured to:
Collect data about a user, the user data comprising information related to activities of the user ([0023] “a user interface 11 allows the user to provide information about his or her age, gender, usual bed time, timing and dosage of caffeine and alcohol intake, health conditions (e.g. high blood pressure, insomnia, diabetes, beta-blocker intake, jet-lag), and desired sleep outcome(s) (i.e. sleep onset latency, sleep/wake time, sleep duration, etc.) to the system 10, 100.”, [0024] “A sleep architecture detection module 13 includes a number of sensors and/or trackers and a number of algorithms for detecting the user's sleep architecture. Any type of sensor, tracker, or other device/method for collecting sleep architecture can be used without departing from the disclosed concept.”)
Analyze the user data based on at least one pattern of activity of the user ([0025])
Determine a sleep optimization recommendation for the user based on the analysis ([0026]-[0027] “recommends an intervention based on the effectiveness of any previous melatonin intervention, the current day's activities, and the prior night's sleep…Behavioral change recommendations are provided only for the actual behaviors that are being monitored. For example and without limitation, if the particular implementation of a system 10 being used does not include a light sensor, then the behavioral changes module 18 will not provide light exposure recommendations. A non-limiting list of behavioral change recommendations that can be provided by the behavioral changes module 18 includes: directing the user to engage in an outdoor activity such as walking for at least 30 minutes a day, directing the user to turn off artificial lights at least two hours before the desired time of sleep onset, directing the user to engage in breathing exercises to assist in reducing the user's stress level, and directing the user to avoid caffeine intake after a specified time of day.”).
Margarito fails to explicitly disclose compile, based on the determination of the sleep optimization recommendation, a set of instructions to be performed within a location of the user prior to the user going to sleep; and communicate, over a network, a notification to the user, the notification comprising information related to the sleep optimization recommendation, the notification comprising executable operations for managing the sleep of the user at the location, wherein the notification causes automatic control of electronic devices at the location, the automatic control causing the electronic devices to operate in a manner as directed by the set of instructions.
However, Pandey teaches a model to provide lifestyle recommendations to optimize sleep outcomes in a context-aware health recommendation system wherein the system compile, by the device, based on the determination, the sleep optimization recommendation a set of instructions to be performed within a location of the user prior to the user going to sleep; communicating, over a network, a notification to the user, the notification comprising information related to the sleep optimization recommendation, the notification comprising executable operations for managing the sleep of the user at the location, wherein the notification causes automatic control of electronic devices at the location, the automatic control causing the electronic devices to operate in a manner as directed by the set of instructions (pg. 4, 4. Multi-Item Health Recommendations: “We match the live contextual parameters for the person with the contextual parameters of the various rules present in the model…We can either present the recommendation to the user (if the recommendation is an action to be taken by the user) or communicate with a smart device that controls the user’s environmental context (e.g., smart home devices, HVAC systems, smart bulbs)… Thus, at any point during the day, the recommendation system would provide a list of timestamped actions to be performed by different agents (the user, or an automated device) to optimize the sleep outcomes”)
It would have been prima facia obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Margarito to incorporate the teachings of Pandey to compile, based on the determination of the sleep optimization recommendation, a set of instructions to be performed within a location of the user prior to the user going to sleep; and communicate, over a network, a notification to the user, the notification comprising information related to the sleep optimization recommendation, the notification comprising executable operations for managing the sleep of the user at the location, wherein the notification causes automatic control of electronic devices at the location, the automatic control causing the electronic devices to operate in a manner as directed by the set of instructions, as these prior art references are directed to sleep optimization systems. One would be motivated to do this to provide personalized sleep recommendations, as recognized by Pandey (Abstract, Introduction).
Regarding claim 16, Margarito discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium tangibly encoded with computer executable instructions that when executed by a device ([0022] “the data collection and analysis tasks of the systems 10, 100 can be executed by any type of controller or computing system with input/output, processing, and memory capabilities, and any number or combination of such controller or computing systems can be used without departing from the scope of the disclosed concept.”, [0016] “a non-transitory machine readable medium, for data and program code storage such as in the fashion of an internal storage area of a computer, and can be volatile memory or nonvolatile memory.”), perform a method comprising:
collecting, by the device, data about a user, the user data comprising information related to activities of the user ([0023] “a user interface 11 allows the user to provide information about his or her age, gender, usual bed time, timing and dosage of caffeine and alcohol intake, health conditions (e.g. high blood pressure, insomnia, diabetes, beta-blocker intake, jet-lag), and desired sleep outcome(s) (i.e. sleep onset latency, sleep/wake time, sleep duration, etc.) to the system 10, 100.”, [0024] “A sleep architecture detection module 13 includes a number of sensors and/or trackers and a number of algorithms for detecting the user's sleep architecture. Any type of sensor, tracker, or other device/method for collecting sleep architecture can be used without departing from the disclosed concept.”);
analyzing, by the device, the user data based on at least one pattern of activity of the user ([0025]);
determining, by the device, a sleep optimization recommendation for the user based on the analysis ([0026]-[0027] “recommends an intervention based on the effectiveness of any previous melatonin intervention, the current day's activities, and the prior night's sleep…Behavioral change recommendations are provided only for the actual behaviors that are being monitored. For example and without limitation, if the particular implementation of a system 10 being used does not include a light sensor, then the behavioral changes module 18 will not provide light exposure recommendations. A non-limiting list of behavioral change recommendations that can be provided by the behavioral changes module 18 includes: directing the user to engage in an outdoor activity such as walking for at least 30 minutes a day, directing the user to turn off artificial lights at least two hours before the desired time of sleep onset, directing the user to engage in breathing exercises to assist in reducing the user's stress level, and directing the user to avoid caffeine intake after a specified time of day.”).
Margarito fails to explicitly disclose compiling, by the device, based on the determination of the sleep optimization recommendation, a set of instructions to be performed within a location of the user prior to the user going to sleep; and communicating, over a network, a notification to the user, the notification comprising information related to the sleep optimization recommendation, the notification comprising executable operations for managing the sleep of the user at the location, wherein the notification causes automatic control of electronic devices at the location, the automatic control causing the electronic devices to operate in a manner as directed by the set of instructions.
However, Pandey teaches a model to provide lifestyle recommendations to optimize sleep outcomes in a context-aware health recommendation system for compiling, by the device, based on the determination, the sleep optimization recommendation, a set of instructions to be performed within a location of the user prior to the user going to sleep; communicating, over a network, a notification to the user, the notification comprising information related to the sleep optimization recommendation, the notification comprising executable operations for managing the sleep of the user at the location, wherein the notification causes automatic control of electronic devices at the location, the automatic control causing the electronic devices to operate in a manner as directed by the set of instructions (pg. 4, 4. Multi-Item Health Recommendations: “We match the live contextual parameters for the person with the contextual parameters of the various rules present in the model…We can either present the recommendation to the user (if the recommendation is an action to be taken by the user) or communicate with a smart device that controls the user’s environmental context (e.g., smart home devices, HVAC systems, smart bulbs)… Thus, at any point during the day, the recommendation system would provide a list of timestamped actions to be performed by different agents (the user, or an automated device) to optimize the sleep outcomes”)
Claim(s) 13-15 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Margarito in view of Pandey, and further in view of Shouldice.
Regarding claim 13 and 18, Margarito in view of Pandey teaches the device of claim 11 and the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 16 (as shown above). Margarito and Pandey, alone or in combination, fail to explicitly teach wherein the notification is visibly displayed upon communication, such that indications for the user related to how the user is recommended to act based on the set of instructions are displayed.
However, Shouldice teaches wherein the notification is visibly displayed upon communication, such that indications for the user related to how the user is recommended to act based on the set of instructions are displayed ([0114] “The system may optionally include a receiver configured to receive one or more advice messages associated with the selected cause, the advice messages including advice content for promoting sleep. The system may optionally include a display to display the received one or more advice messages to a user.”, [0124] “The one or more processors may be configured to generate one or more advice messages associated with the selected cause, the advice messages including advice content for promoting sleep. Optionally, the one or more processors may be configured to transmit (or display) the generated one or more advice messages to a display device associated with the user.”, Figure 24: bottom messages under “From S+ Mentor”, Abstract: “Communicated sleep advice may include content to promote good sleep habits and/or detect risky sleep conditions.”, [0520]).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Margarito and Pandey to incorporate the teachings of Shouldice to have the notification is visibly displayed upon communication, such that indications for the user related to how the user is recommended to act based on the set of instructions are displayed, as these prior art references and the instant application are directed to enhancing a user’s sleep based on their lifestyle. One would be motivated to do this to be able to inform a user of ways or methods to improve their sleep.
Regarding claim 14 and 19, Margarito in view of Pandey teaches the device of claim 11 and the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 16 (as shown above). Margarito and Pandey, alone or in combination, fails to teach wherein the notification corresponds to real-world and digital components of an environment of the location, the environment corresponding to a bedroom of the user at the location.
However, Shouldice teaches wherein the notification corresponds to real-world and digital components of an environment of the location ([0571]-[0579] “Generate and Provide further suggestions over time to improve sleep—a combination of environment and personal routine recommendations. For example: (a) Prompt for checking on lighting settings, TV/gadgets, eating before going to bed (i.e., best practice). (b) Prompt to go to bed when a statistically determined suitable time approaches (option of bedtime alarm as a reminder). (c) Advise the user on what to eat and drink before bed (diet) and when the user wakes up, what to do (listen to music) and not to do (eat or watch TV) in bed and what to take to bed with the user (e.g., by email, in-app, on web). (d) Ask the user what settings/changes they are capable of making and remembers this so as to only recommend changes to the user that the user can implement, e.g., dimming light settings (e) Provide a “Willpower Index”—may warn the user that their willpower may be tested if they haven't managed to get sufficient quality or quantity of sleep. (f) Offer the user the opportunity to explore other products related to any problems that might help sleep better (e.g., sleep bedding, eye masks, speakers for enhanced audio experience) in-app or on web (g) Provide access to discussion forums to learn from sleep experts and other people's approaches—on website and via email/app. (h) Provide recommendations and references to interesting articles on what affects our sleep and how we can improve it—website and via email/app.”), the environment corresponding to a bedroom of the user at the location ([0218] “The system can use environmental sensors to monitor the user's bedroom environment, such as light, sound, temperature, humidity, and/or air quality.”).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Margarito and Pandey to incorporate the teachings of Shouldice to have the environment corresponding to a bedroom of the user at the location, as these prior art references and the instant application are directed to enhancing a user’s sleep based on their lifestyle. One would be motivated to do this as the bedroom is often where a user will sleep.
Regarding claim 15 and 20, Margarito in view of Pandey teaches the device of claim 11 and the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 16 (as shown above). Margarito and Pandey, alone or in combination, fail to teach the method, further comprising: determining a time proximate the user going to sleep, the time proximate corresponding to a time period prior to the user sleeping at the location for which the set of instructions are to be performed, wherein the communication of the notification corresponds to the time proximate.
However, Shouldice teaches the method further comprising: determining a time proximate the user going to sleep, the time proximate corresponding to a time period prior to the user sleeping at the location for which the set of instructions are to be performed, wherein the communication of the notification corresponds to the time proximate ([0213] “The rationale is that if a user is in a ‘stressed’ condition lying in bed, they may find it very difficult to unwind and relax at that time—even with customised breathing exercises or advice. In order to address this need—which may be communicated by the user, or automatically determined based on an observed long duration sleep latency (lengthy time to sleep)—the system can recommend scheduling a series of breathing exercises in the hours before going to bed such as the ‘assisted mediation’ feature”, [0214] “For example, if a user typically goes to bed at say 11 pm, but is seen to take 30 mins to fall asleep, has many interruptions and reports being stressed/“mind racing” in bed, the system may recommend a breathing programme at 10 pm. This could be related to the user by way of a reminder alert on the smartphone (app alert, email, text, audio sound, or other means). This programme might consist of deep breathing exercises lasting 15 minutes, with biofeedback utilising the non-contact sensor. A period of gentle music may follow. The purpose is to relax the user in this time, and prepare them gently for sleep.”).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Margarito and Pandey to incorporate the teachings of Shouldice to determine a time proximate the user going to sleep, the time proximate corresponding to a time period prior to the user sleeping at the location for which the set of instructions are to be performed, wherein the communication of the notification corresponds to the time proximate, as these prior art references and the instant application are directed to enhancing a user’s sleep based on their lifestyle. One would be motivated to do this to make sure the patient is relaxed and prepared right before their sleep, as recognized by Shouldice ([0214]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Li et al. (WO 2022218038 A1) teaches a method, apparatus, and system for environment control in a smart home system that involved automatically adjusting the home environment based on if the user is falling asleep, asleep, or awakening (Abstract).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ATTIYA SAYYADA HUSSAINI whose telephone number is (703)756-5921. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Niketa Patel can be reached at 5712724156. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ATTIYA SAYYADA HUSSAINI/Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/NIKETA PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights